17-992 Rashid v. Sessions BIA Sagerman, IJ A087 468 025 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall 3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 4 New York, on the 9th day of October, two thousand eighteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 8 ROSEMARY S. POOLER, 9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 SAJJAD RASHID, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 17-992 17 NAC 18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Amy Nussbaum Gell, Gell & Gell, 24 New York, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General; Melissa Neiman- 28 Kelting, Assistant Director; Jacob 29 A. Bashyrov, Trial Attorney, 1 Office of Immigration Litigation, 2 United States Department of 3 Justice, Washington, DC. 4 5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 8 is DENIED. 9 Petitioner Sajjad Rashid, a native and citizen of 10 Pakistan, seeks review of a March 9, 2017, decision of the 11 BIA denying Rashid’s motion to remand and affirming an October 12 6, 2016, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying 13 Rashid’s application for relief under the Convention Against 14 Torture (“CAT”). In re Sajjad Rashid, No. A 087 468 025 15 (B.I.A. Mar. 9, 2017), aff’g No. A 087 468 025 (Immig. Ct. 16 Napanoch Oct. 6, 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity 17 with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 18 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented by 19 the BIA. Gertsenshteyn v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 544 F.3d 20 137, 142 (2d Cir. 2008). Rashid’s convictions limit our 21 review to constitutional claims and questions of law. 8 22 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), (D); Ortiz-Franco v. Holder, 782 F.3d 23 81, 86 (2d Cir. 2015). 2 1 To obtain CAT deferral—the only form of relief for which 2 he was eligible—Rashid was required to demonstrate a 3 likelihood that he would be tortured in Pakistan with 4 government involvement or acquiescence. 8 C.F.R. 5 §§ 1208.16(c), 1208.17(a), 1208.18(a)(1). We discern no 6 legal or constitutional error in the agency’s conclusion that 7 Rashid failed ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals